Entries categorized "Pima"

In today'sArizona Daily Star, columnist Tim Steller chides the Pima County Democratic Party for trying to take down "moderate" Republican LD9 Legislator Ethan Orr.

First of all, a quick look at Orr's voting record and political endorsements reveal that the "Ethan Orr is a moderate" meme is a myth. For example:

Orr voted FOR voter suppression on multiple occasions. Most recently, Orr cast the deciding vote in committee and sided Republicans who want to do an "end run" around voters by repealing last year's Omnibus Voter Suppression Bill (HB2305), in order to pass several other voter suppression bills this session. The bill to repeal HB2305-- if passed by the Legislature-- will eliminate the citizens' right to vote for or against voter suppression in the 2014 election. Orr voted for voter suppression last week, and he was part of the Republican block that originally passed HB2305 in the dead of night in the waning hours of the 2013 Legislative session.

Orr signed an anti-abortion pledge to defend the rights of the unborn. Orr-- along with Governor Jan Brewer, Republican legislators, and three weak-kneed Democrats-- signed the Christian conservative Center for Arizona Policy's pledge to fight for the rights of unborn fetuses, while ignoring the legal rights of adult women to make choices about their bodies, their children, and their lives. Steller soft-sells Orr's pro-fetus stance by saying that Orr "tends toward a pro-life viewpoint on abortion." Orr signed a pledge to fight for fetal personhood; this is an extreme viewpoint that confers rights upon fetuses-- while taking away the rights of American women. This goes far beyond tending "toward pro-life". [Pledge text and more after the jump.]

On Tuesday, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose the Rosemont Mine in Pima County. Supervisors OK formal objection to Rosemont Mine. "The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to send the Forest Service a formal objection to the agency’s tentative approval of the mine and its final environmental impact statement. The letter is expected to compel the federal agency to respond to Pima County’s long list of concerns over the planned copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains."

So Rosemont Mine and its supporters have proposed a novel idea: they will seize part of Pima County and give it to to Santa Cruz County, where they apparently believe people are more amenable to being bought off with Canadian "loonie" to approve their mine. This is some in-your-face corruption.

State Sen. Gail Griffin on Tuesday breathed life into a bid to bring Green Valley, Sahuarita and the mines into Santa Cruz County, though the idea hasn't proven popular locally.

* * *

Griffin said she introduced the bill at the request of constituents, doesn't expect to have trouble getting it through the Legislature, and wants to hear “about any possible unintended consequences” it may bring about.

Griffin, a Republican whose District 14 skirts the eastern edge of Green Valley, introduced SB 1357, which would put a boundary change to a vote in Santa Cruz County and to those affected in southern Pima County.

That "constituent" is Emmit McGloughlin, " a former Tucson City Council member who now lives in Sonoita, and formed the Santa Cruz County Committee for Quality Jobs more than a year ago to explore moving the county line from Amado to Pima Mine Road, which is where Griffin's bill would put it."

With full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), January 2014 marks the beginning of a new era in health insurance in the US.

For the chronically uninsured and for those with pre-existing conditions, it's been a long and financially perilous wait for all of the ACA benefits to kick in.

For anti-government, conservative ideologues, the three-year waiting period gave them time to mercilessly attack reform that will provide insurance for millions of Americans, spread layers of misinformation about "Obamacare," hold dozens of meaningless repeal votes in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and hold the country hostage for 16 days in a multi-million-dollar government shutdown fiasco.

Today, December 23, 2013 is the cut-off date for enrollment in ACA insurance plans which begin January 1, 2014; the final deadline for ACA enrollment is March 31, 2014. Since the beginning of December, I have been shopping the healthcare marketplace on behalf of the ultra-small business that I work for--The American Journal of Medicine. On Friday, I submitted our final paperwork to our insurance broker.

This is the story of one small business' route to "affordable" care.

Our Journey

Our journey began long before the premier of Healthcare.gov, the much-maligned ACA enrollment website, and even before the ACA was signed into law in 2010. At the Journal, we had been unhappy with our health insurance plan through Aetna for years. Like clockwork, the cost went up 10-25% each year, forcing us to rethink coverage multiple times in order to live within our budget. We also were dissatisfied with the limited number of even more expensive alternative plans offered to us. The Journal's editorial pages have been pushing for Medicare for all for years and broke the stories about medical bankruptcy in 2009 and continued medical bankruptcy under Romneycare in Massachusetts in 2011. Consequently, we were ready for the public option back in 2009; today, we're just glad that the ACA made it through the Republican gauntlet and the Supreme Court. Unlike recent news stories about people and small businesses wanting to keep their existing healthcare plans, we were waiting with baited breath for three years to dump our plan.

The bottomline is that with Obamacare, the Journal -- and the emplopyees-- will pay less for healthcare insurance. Read about our ACA Marketplace experiences and lessons learned after the jump.

Although small-scale compared to big-city encampments, Occupy Tucson was one of the longest running, ongoing encampments and one of the most harassed by local police and one of the most ignored by the local media. Hundreds of tickets for violating park curfews were issued to Tucson Occupiers in nightly park sweeps. At one point in 2011, more Occupy tickets had been issued in Tucson than in any other US city-- except for New York City.

It’s only April 1, but already there is an impressive line-up of progressive events taking shape this month. In addition to these educational events, there are multiple fund-raisers for candidates, parties, and causes in April. The list below is not meant to be all-inclusive. (Check out Facebook and the Pima County Democratic Party calendar or the calendar on Blog for Arizona for other events-- including multiple opportunities to donate.) The Tucson events included here are all free and are related to one or more Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) core policy issues: economic and social justice, universal healthcare, clean elections, ending corporate personhood, clean environment, or ending the wars.

April 2: Community Vision for the Ronstadt Bus Center

The Tucson Bus Riders Union and the Primavera Foundation are sponsoring a community forum to gather Tucsonans’ ideas on what should be done with the Ronstadt Transit Center on Congress Street. For several years, developers have been eyeing the Ronstadt Center for demolition and relocation out of downtown. If you believe that it is important for a sustainable city to have a bus terminal downtown—near restaurants, retail shops, major employers, and the new street car line—come to this meeting at the Rialto Theater, beginning at 5:30. For more information, call 624-0312 or email busriders@tucsonbusridersunion.com or go to the event’s Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/events/496939023698809/.

April 3: Solar Energy Efficiency vs the Status Quo

The Tucson Chapter of Drinking Liberally is sponsoring a joint presentation by Bruce Plenk, City of Tucson Solar Energy Coordinator, and Russell Lowes, Sierra Club Rincon Group Energy Chair and Research Director forwww.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org. The DL social hour begins at 6 p.m., with the speakers beginning around 7 p.m. on the patio of The Shanty. For more information, check out DL’s Facebook event http://www.facebook.com/events/104680899727634/.

Heller opposed Koz's gun buyback because innocent guns were destroyed. Instead he supported fromer State Senator Frank Antenori's parking lot gun sales which allowed private citizens to freely sell their guns to strangers, which held on the same day at basically the same location. More recently, Heller appeared on the Daily Show touting the merits of a new law in the Arizona Legislature which would bar law enforcement from destroying guns.

One would be hard pressed to meet an old-timer in Tucson
who believes that Louis Taylor was guilty of setting the 1970 Pioneer
Hotel Fire. One friend of mine who was raised in Barrio Viejo and knew
Taylor growing up described him as a guy who would stick up for
neighborhood kids who were getting bullied. He was hardly a model
citizen, however. My friend, who later shared a cell with
him at Florence, also told me about how he and Taylor used to shoplift
from Woolworth’s and steal sneakers from another Downtown store.
Likewise, Taylor was hanging out at the Hotel that night in the hope of
sneaking away with some dessert or liquor from a Christmas party. None
of this, of course, speaks to a pathology which would lead one to set a
fire that killed twenty nine people.

Tucson was a different place back then. Though the legendary Tom
Price was leading a small band of reformers in the bureaucracy who were
out to modernize city government, an old boy network was still in
control and hostile to change. This was a city where building codes were
often ignored and the fire department was ill-equipped to handle a
blaze in an 11-story building. The same local leadership also wanted to find someone
to blame for what happened, and a black kid from Connie Chambers, even
one who helped rescue people that night, was a convenient scapegoat.

The Old Pueblo has largely changed for the better since then. Unfortunately, some things remain the same.

Today, comes the news that Taylor is to be set free after forty two
years in prison. Doubts have been expressed by people involved in this
case from the very beginning, but it took over ten years of work by the
Arizona Justice Project, Barry Scheck, and former State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Stanley Feldman to get this result, largely because of the
lack of cooperation and occasional stonewalling by the prosecutors. One
wonders, at this point, why they would even bother.

This story provides a window
into the special pathology of the insular decades-old political machine
which is called the Pima County Attorney’s office. The insistence, for
example, that “victims” be consulted on any deal in a case that dates to
the Nixon Administration is not only absurd, but speaks to the same
disturbing attitude that got Taylor arrested in the first place, namely
that something bad happened, so someone, anyone, has to pay for it.
Barbara LaWall’s own embarrassing performance on 60 Minutes,
wherein she seemed unclear on the concept of reasonable doubt, she was
unwilling to admit that her office or her predecessors might have gotten
something horribly wrong, even in the face of questions about whether
the fire was an arson at all.

There may be a good reason for this. It could be argued that they are
simply looking out for the Pima County taxpayer in case Taylor decides
to sue for the fact that we basically ruined his whole life. If this
were true, then it would have been best to simply say nothing rather
than sticking to a story which was discredited years ago. This is an
office which has always been far more concerned about winning than
justice. LaWall’s attitude in this case makes one wonder how many other
Louis Taylors are stewing in prison because of her inability to admit
that sometimes the wrong guy gets accused.

This community owes Taylor an apology, at the very least, and that includes LaWall along with the rest of us.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) amendment, dubbed the Back to Work Budget, was one of yesterday's votes. It lost 84 to 327, with no Republicans voting for it (not surprising) and 102 Democrats voting against it.

How did Arizona's Democratic Party representatives vote on an amemdment spearheaded by one of their own-- Rep. Raul Grijalva? Not so good. Grijalva and Rep. Ed Pastor voted for the Back to Work Budget-- which would create jobs, reduce the debt, and protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Yesterday's re-election campaign kickoff for Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik was a Democratic Party love fest for the feisty Republican turned Democrat.

There were nearly as many Pima County Democratic Party faithful in attendance at Borderlands Brewery as there were at the traditional St. Patrick's Day fundraiser a few days earlier.

Kozachik told the crowd of Dems, Greens, Occupiers, Progressives, and, I believe, a few closet Republicans that his campaign has hit the ground running with 800 signatures in just a few weeks. The Pima County Republican Party has not announced a challenger to the iconoclastic Kozachik, who proved to be too independent minded for them, after he bucked a loyality pledge to Governor Jan Brewer, spoke out against the Arizona Legislature's multiple attempts to hurt Tucson and Pima County, endorsed Democrats Richard Carmona for US Senate and Ron Barber for Congress, partied with Pima Dems on Election Night 2012, and-- the last straw-- spearheaded a campaign for universal background checks at gun shows.

The following guest commentary about the current budget battles in DC was submitted to the Arizona Daily Star for publication. Since the Star chooses to primarily publicize Republican budget plans-- and no other ideas, including those proposed by Southern Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva-- they didn't publish this commentary about the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Back to Work Budget. So, here you go...

On Tuesday, March 12th, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus released its proposed federal budget. Dubbed the “Back to
Work Budget”, it will be presented as an amendment to the already discredited
Paul Ryan and Congressional Majority budget. The CPC budget will reduce the
Federal Budget Deficit by more than $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years, will
create 7 million new jobs in its first year, and preserve existing benefits for
Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ “Back to
Work” budget will also make public healthcare affordable to the nation by
offering a public option.

In recent months, a handful of Republican governors have softened their stances on Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Showing a bit of financial savvy and (dare I say) compassion for the millions of poor Americans who would be covered by this, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and others have decided to take the feds' funds and allow expanded healthcare coverage for their citizens who can't afford insurance.

Unfotrunately for the people who would benefit from Medicaid expansion, Big Brother Brothers don't like it when their puppets... er... politicians brake ranks with the 1%. Americans for Prosperity-- the Koch Brothers' astroturf group-- is organizing the citizenry to fight against their own self interests to defeat Medicaid expansion.

This battle is coming to Tucson on Thursday, March 7, 2013. Americans for Prosperity has organized a public forum on Medicaid expansion at The Loft Cinema, 6:30-8:30 p.m. After a showing of "Sick and Sicker", an anti-Obamacare propaganda film, there will be a panel, which is heavily packed with Tea Party types-- like former State Senator and perpetual blow hard Frank Antenori, State Representative Ethan Orr, and Tom Jenney, Arizona Director for Americans for Prosperity. The sole Democrat on the panel is State Senator Steve Farley. (Go, Steve!)

If you believe that healthcare is a human right and if you believe that "We the People" should take care of each other (and not fight over crumbs left by the 1%), come testify at this forum. This is your chance to tell your story. If you support Medicaid expansion in Arizona, you can also go to this link on the AHCCCS website add your name as a supporter. Comments and healthcare stories can be sent to Share@azahcccs.gov.

Flyer and details about Americans for Prosperity's efforts in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida after the jump.

Last week, in an historic move, the Tucson City Council advanced a resolution to require universal background checks on all sales at gun shows on city owned or city managed property.

This action was taken during the afternoon study session. Council chambers were filled to capacity later that day for the regular meeting. By far, proponents of gun control outnumbered the people against it. This was obvious because they were wearing "Common Sense Gun Laws" buttons. During the call to the audience, 20 people volunteered to speak in favor of the gun show resolution; three volunteered to speak against it-- two Tea Party representatives and one gun show promoter, whose family has profited from shows at the Tucson Convention Center for 20 years. After the jump, watch the video from the call to the audience.

During today's study session, Tucson's City Council voted unanimously to advance a resolution which would require background checks on every gun purchase that occurs on city-owned or city-managed property. The resolution further states that there will be "no permits for gun shows on City owned or managed property until the provisions of the above are enacted."

City attornies said that since this is a resolution and not an ordinance it does not conflict with state law.

Today's vote paves the way for a council vote on the resolution on February 20, but citizens can use the February 5 (tonight) City Council meeting call to the audience to voice their opinions on this matter. Here is the link to the proposal brought forward by Council members Steve Kozachik and Karin Uhlich. More background and a video of local leaders talking about gun control after the jump.

Saturday, January 26, was a day of surprises-- a bad day for incumbent Democratic Party officers but a good day for activists and young Democrats. It was the culmination of the Arizona Democratic Party's (ADP) statewide reorganization, which began with the election of new precinct committee (PC) persons in August.

These last two years have been somewhat tumultuous for the ADP, after the stormy election and eventual resignation of Andrei Cherny (of No Labels fame) as party chair. Both the county and state parties came under fire from candidates and activists for playing favorites, endorsing candidates before the primary election, and, sometimes, and actively working for or against certain Democratic candidates. As a result, many unhappy campers grumbled on Facebook, on the blogs, and in person, and some even protested the headquarters in Phoenix. Multiple groups-- including progressives-- used the past few months to gain power in the local party structure-- with an eye on Saturday's state committee meeting.

On Saturday, 400+ elected precinct committee people elected the chair, eight vice chairs (four of each gender from different counties), a secretary, a treasurer, a DNC representative, an education coordinator, and an affirmative action moderator.

The first upset victory of the day was for first vice chair. Former Carmona campaign manager and long-time activist Alexis Tameron beat three-term vice chair Harriet Young handily. After the jump, watch a video of Tameron, as well as more details, photos, and election results.

Gun Appreciation Day was observed nationally on Saturday, January 19. Gun owners were encouraged to hold rallies, go to gun shows, go to shooting ranges, or participate in other activities in support of lax gun regulation ... er... unfettered gun ownership.

On Saturday, January 26, 2013, the Arizona Democratic Party will hold its reorganization meeting in Phoenix. New state party officers will be elected by elected precinct committee (PC) people. If you are a progressive and an elected, please consider voting for Phil Lopes. If you are a PC and can't make the meeting, contact your legislative district chair and give someone your proxy vote. Here is the proxy form.

Below is Lopes' candidate statement...

Phil Lopes for Vice Chair

Dear AZ State Democratic Committee member,

This letter is to ask for your vote for the position of Vice-Chair of the AZ Democratic Party. I would be honored to have your support and vote. I am running for Vice-Chair to:

The Pima County Democratic Party elected a slate of new officers-- including Don Jorgensen as chair-- by acclamation at Saturday's reorganization meeting. The whole election took about 30 minutes.

Although there were rumors about wild card candidates (from the business friendly Latinos who took over Legislative District 3) running against the suggested slate and although the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) met with progressive precinct committee (PsC) people to encourage them to run for statewide or county offices, there were no surprises on Saturday. (The progressive faction and the business friendly Latino faction are represented on the Executive Committee and on the State Committee, making both groups more diverse in multiple ways.)

Chair Jeff Rogers-- who led the local party with a strong hand through two, often-contentious terms-- called the meeting to order and ran it. He started by congratulating the Dem foot soldiers for helping to elect President Barack Obama and a Democratic majority of Congressional seats-- Ron Barber, Raul Grijalva, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, and Ed Pastor.

Arizona State Senator Steve Farley nominated Jorgensen (pictured at left), a candidate who he said "has blue blood, in a good way".

In a short speech after his speedy, uncontested election, Jorgensen-- dressed in the Dem Party Chair "uniform" of blue jeans, cowboy boots, and a blue blazer-- came across as smart, friendly, inclusive, and spot-on with the issues that reflect Democratic values.

"I know that it is wrong to have more laws to regulate a woman's vagina, than assault weapons; more laws that support prisons more than public education; and laws that allow you to be pulled over because of the color of your skin," Jorgensen said, alluding to multiple right-wing bills passed in recent years by the Arizona Legislature.

"We need to work smarter and speak louder," Jorgensen continued. "We are not going to be complacent as we were in 2010. The work starts tomorrow." More about the elections after the jump.

Public schools are the backbone of our community. This is a sad day for Tucson. In multiple stories about the public forums on school closures, dozens of parents and activitists have spoken out in favor of saving particular schools. "This side of town needs those schools. You can close all of them." "This school has wonderfully creative programs. You can't close it." "This is a top-rated school with full enrollment. You can't close it." And on...

Unfortunately, these reasons won't be enough to save most of the schools. With a $17 million budget deficit and 13,000 empty seats (the equivalent of 26 schools) TUSD is looking at data, expenditures, and enrollment-- how can taxpayers get the most bang for their buck-- not emotion, not program specifics, and not community cohesion.

In a recent Star article, TUSD Superintendent John Pedicone admitted that the district won't realize the projected full $5 million from the school closures because the district has to maintain the closed schools until they are closed or leased. Of the nine schools closed in 2010, three remain vacant and a deal to level a fourth recently fell through.

Allowing as many as 18 public schools to sit empty is a dramatic waste of resources. Tucson needs out-of-the-box thinking on this issue. For some ideas, read on.

Reorganization of state and county political parties is one of the more arcane processes of our political system.

Every two years, new and incumbent precinct committee (PCs) people are elected in August, during the primary. New and incumbent politicians are elected in November. Between the November election and February 1, legislative districts (LDs), then the county political parties, and lastly the state political parties reorganize and elect new officers. (Both the Democrats and Republicans do this.)

Many of the same people volunteer to be PCs, officers, and State Committee representatives. Sometimes there is a bit of drama -- like when the Three Sonorans tried to get me to run for county part chair against Jeff Rogers or when the state party bent the rules to elect Andrei Cherny-- but generally, there are few real surprises-- until now.

On Monday, while the eyes of Tucson were on the TUSD desegregation public forum, a coup took place on the west side. As a representative of Congressman Raul Grijalva read the Congressman's statement in favor of the restoration of Mexican American Studies, anti-Grijalva forces took the chair of LD3 and key positions on the county Executive Committee. Details after the jump.

The usual left-wing groups were represented-- Jobs with Justice, Occupy Tucson, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), and college students. Who was absent? Wal-Mart workers and representatives of the United Food and Commercial Workers--the union that played an integral role in organizing the national day of protest.

Although Wal-Mart is infamous for paying low wages, intimidating workers who want to unionize, discriminating against women in promotion practices, and avoiding offering health care insurance by manipulating employees' hours, the tipping point for yesterday's protest was requiring workers to start Black Friday work schedules on Thanksgiving at 8 p.m.

Two local election integrity advocates--Jim March and Mickey Duniho--addressed the Pima County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, during the call to the audience.

Pima, Maricopa, Cochise and other counties are still counting ballots from last Tuesday's presidential election. Hundreds of thousands of uncounted ballots have caused delays in finalizing multiple races and ballot propositions. Main stream news sources and blogs have been on fire with stories about Arizona's election incompetence and stories of voter suppression-- before and after the election.

Let's face it. We have systemic election problems in Pima County, in Arizona, and nationwide. In the 2010 election, hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted throughout the week after the election. Why weren't these election problems addressed and fixed before the 2012 election? The Board of Supervisors needs to man up and face election integrity issues instead of stonwalling.

Are you one of those Democrats who grumbles about the
Arizona Democratic Party’s (ADP) slide into Republican-lite territory?

Are you tired of Blue Dog Democratic candidates?

Are you tired of the party’s weak stances on hot-button
issues?

Did you ever wonder why the ADP’s Progressive Caucus has so
little power—despite being the state party’s largest caucus? (Maybe you didn’t
even know that the ADP had a progressive caucus?)

Are you ready for change?

If you said, “Hell, yeah!” to any of the above questions, then
it’s time to stop muttering and start acting. On Wednesday, Nov. 14, the Tucson
Chapters of Drinking Liberally/Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) are
holding a special meeting at The Shanty—beginning
at 6 p.m. with FREE pizza. The focus of the meeting will be on envisioning and
brainstorming a more progressive Democratic Party in Arizona. Former Arizona Legislator and PDA
Tucson coordinator Phil Lopes will lead the discussion.

Eariler this week, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced that more than 600,000 ballots from Tuesday's election had yet to be counted. According to the Wednesday Arizona Daily Star the breakdown is:

After the jump, watch Maddow skewer Arizona for having more than 600,000 uncounted votes. No one should concede until all ballots have been counted. Today's Arizona Daily Star said that could take another week. We need election reform.

I attended the Open Studio reception on Thursday night, and as usual a wide variety of art will be represented again this year. A list of artists is online. Printed booklets (with tour maps) for the tour can be picked up at all Bookmans locations, The Loft Cinema, and other locations.

In the past, I have participated in the tour as an artist and as an art aficionado. (Shameless plug-- this year my daughter is one of the artists.) The Studio Tour is an eye-opening experience. Check out the breadth and depth of art in our community. Please support it by buying some art this holiday season. (Hint: bring cash or check or your Pay Pal account information. Many artists do not take plastic.)

McSally’s
website says she believes in “the sanctity of every human life”. This
right-wing code for saying that she agrees with the Republican Party’s
anti-abortion platform. Ironically, small-government McSally
believes that the government should dictate when American women have children.
Not supporting a woman’s right to make decisions governing her own body is a deal
breaker for many women.

“Yes, you can be a feminist who says that you don’t agree
with abortion and wouldn’t have an abortion,” Steinem answered, “but you can’t
be a feminist who says that other women can’t [have an abortion] and [who] criminalizes
abortion. One in three American women needs an abortion at some time in her
life. To make that criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.”

Women’s Health

In addition to her anti-choice stance, McSally is in the repeal-and-replace camp
when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--even declaring that she would
vote to strike down the ACA as one of her first acts in Congress. This also
reflects her anti-woman views.

The ACA includes many hard-fought benefits for women: coverage
for preventive services like mammograms and PAP smears; coverage for maternity
care—a benefit that McSally’s former boss Arizona Senator Jon Kyl
infamously mocked; coverage for
contraception and family planning—a benefit 98% of American women need at some
point in their lives; and an end to insurance
premium price discrimination against women.

Pay Equity

The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law
as president was the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers
for wage discrimination. Historically, American women have made less than male
counterparts doing the same work. A 2010 study showed that American women earn
about 80
cents per every dollar earned by a male worker. This not only translates to
a smaller paycheck, but over a lifetime in the workforce, this results in a
significantly smaller retirement income. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney has declared that he would not have signed the fair pay act into law.

Where does McSally stand on equal pay for equal work? Who
knows? The “Jobs & Economic
Opportunities” paragraph on her website focuses on cutting corporate taxes
and regulations—with no mention of equal pay or workers’ rights.

“…You want to talk about a war on women? Walk in my shoes down
the streets of Kabul. Walk in my shoes down the streets of Riyadh; where women
have to be covered up. Where they’re stoned, where they’re honor killed if
they’ve been raped , where they can’t drive and they can’t travel without the
permission of a male relative.

That’s a war on women…”

To American women, McSally’s comment is a slap in
the face because it discounts dismisses our struggles here at home. Yes,
definitely, the way women are treated in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist
countries is deplorable. Women in more progressive countries are fighting for
the rights of our oppressed sisters around the world.

We are able to fight because of the rights and
freedoms we have won here at home—the right to free public education, the right
to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to control our own
bodies, the right to affordable healthcare for ourselves and our families, the
right to love and marry whomever we want.

McSally’s record and
public statements show that she is not a feminist and that she does not stand
with American women in our struggles.

P.S. I included a still life of my recipe box, my 1972 edition Betty Crocker Cookbook, a few kitchen knick-knacks, and my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe to show that you can be a feminist and still cook and own recipe cards.

Since the 2006 Pima County election, which created the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), there have been ongoing gquestions about election integrity, the ease in which local vote-scanning machines can be hacked, and accusations of slip-shod procedures in the county's election division.

Last Friday, a group of local citizens-- Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents-- filed a lawsuit to force Pima County to comply with election laws in the way it handles ballots and ballot machines in this election. This action will be heard in Pima Superior Court tomorrow-- Nov. 1-- at 2 p.m.

In a Wake Up Tucson radio interview, Bill Beard (who is running against long-time Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez) and attorney Brad Roach said that the current court action alleges no past wrong doing by the county; it simply asks judge to order the county to comply with state law in handling the elections.

"Pima County has short-circuited some of the laws of the state of Arizona," Beard claims in the radio interview.

In the past, the Pima County Board of Supervisors has been less than cooperative with election integrity investigations-- hence the move to encourge the courts to force the county's hand. The plaintiffs want the judge to instruct the county to:

1- Have poll workers include in every Official Return Envelope a copy of the signed "tally lists" or results tape. (This is a record of the total number of votes a machine has on board before it leaves the precinct polling place and is taken to the elections department. When the machine reaches the county, these totals can be rechecked.)

Consequently, I know what search results you get when you Google her name different ways, since I used the following search strings multiple times: "martha mcsally," "martha mcsally gay," "martha mcsally husband," "martha mcsally washington post" and "donald f henry."

Before I posted the story debunking her feminist claims, debunking her denial of being a "cookie cutter" Republican candidate, revealing that she was afraid to meet with constitutents and answer questions, and calling for transparency related to accusations about a sham marriage while she was in the Air Force, one would get pages of Google results for any of the searches above. (Of course, in Google's own quirky way, not all of the stories were relevant but many were. For the record, it looked as if Henry-- her ex-- had already been scrubbed from the Internet, except for a reference in an old Air Force magazine.)

Yesterday and today, when I Googled "martha mcsally," it looked as if someone was trying to push my BfAZ story off of the first page of Google results. Now what you get -- instead of news-- is her campaign website (which always comes up first), but now it is followed by generic background like her Wikipedia entry, a link to her background, and a non-story based upon old comments related to burkas and the War on Women in the Middle East. Real news has been pushed down. Yesterday, when I Googled "martha mcsally gay," I got three entries-- all old and referring to her anti-gay statements but not including the BfAZ story, which had been at the top of a string of links on Sunday and Monday. Hmmm... Today-- thanks to a new comment on that story-- it's on page one again.

McSally needs to stop playing games-- like a "cookie cutter" Republican would do-- and answer the questions raised in that story. Why did she get married in Pima County in 1997 and then travel to Santa Cruz County at the end of 1999 to have the marriage annulled? Her lawyer's office is two miles from the Pima County court. Why drive 90 miles? Did it have something to do with that promotion she got to Senator Jon Kyl's office in 1999? What is she hiding? (For images of the court documents and more background, go here.)

We need to put pressure on McSally for a statement on these issues. It's a matter of truthfulness, transparency, and integrity-- values she says she stands for as a "warrior."

Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn't afraid to meet constituents?

As a long-time resident of Giffords' district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat-- you know, the one who says she "resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”-- but she was a no show.

McSally is no Gabby Giffords

Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn't have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)

I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women's issues (since she now claims to fight for women's rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the "sanctity of life", while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what's up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).

When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. "Gosh, she's so busy." (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes-- we're not talking with her!)

Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women's issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, "Gosh... she's so busy. She doesn't have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know... blah, blah, blah." Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks? (Was it something I tweeted?)

Former mining lobbyist, right-wing think-tank exec, and Koch Brothers darling Congressman Jeff Flake wants to replace long-time Arizona Senator Jon Kyl in the US Senate. (Shudder.) Former surgeon general Dr. Richard Carmona is trying to end the stronghold that Republican extremists have had on our two Senate seats for decades.

As a public service-- just so you really know who you're voting for-- the Carmona campaign has launched a new website to educate voters about Flake's Teapublican, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare reform, pro-1% voting record. Check out DoYouKnowJeff.com before you vote.

Besides their views on Mexican American Studies, one of the most telling questions at Wednesday's Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) candidate forum was about labor unions. There were definitely differences of opinion about the role of teachers' unions and how the union issue relates to the shift toward charter schools (which are not unionized).

After the jump, listen to the candidates' thoughts on working with labor unions. This is the third in a series of videos from the forum. Here is a link to my You Tube channel where this and other video clips reside.

Undoubtedly one of the more contentious local races this election
season is the non-partisan 12-person race for three unpaid positions on the Tucson Unified
School District's (TUSD)
Governing Board.

In this race, there are two University
of Arizona professors, a call center
supervisor, a Sunnyside
School District employee, a self-employed landscaper, a lawyer, a Chamber
of Commerce VP, a former TUSD teacher, a Pima County
employee, and three business owners. (Isn't democracy grand?)

In this week's Tucson Weekly (TW), columnist
Mari Herreras tackled the challenging task of profiling
the 11 of the 12 candidates. (One of the business owers bowed out of the
interview process.) When covering a hot topic like the TUSD board, I would have
hoped that the TW would have chosen a more neutral
reporter. Otherwise, they're just opening themselves up to comments from some blogger.

Although the TW story leads with some of the high
points of the Mexican American Studies (MAS) controversy, it goes on to say,
"Mexican American Studies isn't the only issue that the district
faces." It's definitely not the only issue, but MAS must be the most
important issue for Herreras and the TW.

I counted the topic mentions in the TW article, and here are the stats:

In contrast, the Arizona
Daily Star ran two articles highlighting the views of the TUSD
candidates this week. One very lengthy article focused completely on budget
and finance, while the other
one tackled other issues, including what the candidates believe is the
biggest problem facing the district and what they think about MAS. When asked
about TUSD's biggest challenges, the answers ran the gamut but mostly focused
on budget/finance or student achievement.

So, the TW coverage focused more on MAS than any
other issue, and theStar devoted
more column inches to budgetary problems. What about graduation rates, student
achievement, skill-building, curriculum development, class sizes, testing,
teacher development, teacher pay, money in the classrooms, white flight, charter schools,
desegregation, Prop 204, or squeezing more money out of the Legislature?

- Recently 341 Pima County residents were elected as precinct committee people (PCs). These volunteers represent the Democratic Party's ground game. They show up to walk, they make phone calls for candidates, and they donate to candidates and issues. Of the 341 newly elected PCs, 81 or 24% are affiliated with Progressive Democrats of America's (PDA) Tucson Chapter. This includes six of the eight people who serve on the PDA Tucson Steering Committee (some of whom are pictured here with other PDA state and national leaders.)

- Tucson's PDA Chapter is the largest in the state, and one of the largest in the country.

It is also possible to download the .kml files so you can interact with them using the google-earth application. If you hover over a school, it will tell you the name. If you click on a school, it will tell you the address and some of the scores. You can select TUSD and/or any of the six outlying districts.http://www.av8n.com/schools/aims-2012-visualization.htm#xbib-kml-files

Some observations:

The non-AIMS data is calibrated against national norms, which makes it more useful than the regular AIMS data.

None of the data is worth very much, because it is all based on trivia tests. Doing a good job of coping with a trivia test is nothing to be proud of. On the other hand, not coping with a trivia test is cause for alarm.

The data partly agrees with conventional wisdom but partly not. In particular, there is a semi-circular nimbus of relatively well-coping schools on the edge of town, extending from the northwest clockwise around to the southeast. This stands in contrast to the downtown and southwest schools, which are not coping nearly so well. On the other hand, there are exceptions to the notion that "geography is destiny", including some downtown schools that score much better than their neighbors.

Remember the proverb:

Be careful what you test for; you might get it.

It would be a monumental mistake to judge any student, teacher, school, or district on the basis of trivia tests.

The state of news in Southern Arizona is fractured. Tucson's former flagship newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, was loping along like a dinosaur trying to outrun an asteroid-- until the owners fired dozens of writers and other staff last summer. Now a collection of wire stories and full-page ads, this dinosaur of the print era is barely viable.

Pesky blog sites like this one report the news while the newspaper is in typesetting. Still, a handful of beat reporters file regular stories, and the editorial page occasionally includes an opinion piece not written by an out-of-town pundit.

One of those beat reporters, the Star'sAlexis Huicochea covers education-- including the story too tough to die-- the ongoing tug of war known as the Mexican American Studies Program (MAS). Along side, Huicochea's many articles in the Star are hundreds of blog posts by the Three Sonorans (pro-MAS), the Arizona Daily Independent (anti-MAS), and many others, including two Blog for Arizona bloggers-- Dave Safier and me.

There are so many voices shouting and writing their opinions on MAS that to be truly informed, one must read multiple versions of the same story-- with a critical eye-- to understand the whole picture.

I respect any politician, or either party, who speaks truth to power, especially when they are doing so to stand up for their community.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll is bound to get some flack for his recent comments at a Save the Scenic Santa Ritas meeting (hat tip to Sonoran Alliance). He was lamenting the fact that local newspapers are raking in cash for running Rosemont's propaganda ads, causing a financial conflict in covering fairly the issues involved in the controversial mine project. He said he wished that those news outlets would put stock in their community and "stop selling out to those pricks".

Hells to the yeah, Sugar Ray! This is one Republican who is not backing off what he believes because some Tea Party wackadoodles have gotten it in their heads that Ray's not conservative enough for them. Some think that Ray is insufficiently on board with the plan for some foreign corporation to bust in here, hose our views and our water supply, leave us with another toxic mess to clean up, and blow town with the profits.

Well, Ray's ::gasp:: representing the concerns and views of his constituents in the district on this matter. Rather than rolling over and showing belly to every multi-nat that rolls in, like every other Tea Party dupe is begging to do these days, Ray's actually fighting for the people he represents. I didn't even know that Republicans were still allowed to do that.

With the current controversies and investigations and audits and partisan bickering around Rio Nuevo, one can hardly fault some folks - even Tucson Democrats - for wanting to wash their hands of the whole vexing thing and just kill the program.

Let me try to convince you that it is a grave error to give up on Rio Nuevo, and we can and should fault those who want to kill the program.

What is Rio Nuevo? Most folks would describe it as an attempt to 'revitalize' Tucson's downtown. Some folks would recognize that it is a very large investment in that goal: about $250 million, so far. A slightly smaller number might know that it is a Tax Increment Finance district dedicated to that goal which has generated that investment.

What do I hope you will think about Rio Nuevo? That it is Tucsonans investing in Tucson's future.

Consider:

Tucson has never had a vital downtown as a major metropolitan city. We had a downtown that worked for a large town many years ago, but that has long since died. We are not trying to 'revitalize' anything; we are now trying to create a vital urban core, essentially from scratch. That is a difficult project for which no one has a rulebook or blueprint. Many have tried in other cities - even here in Arizona - and failed far more miserably than we.

Where does the money come from? Tucsonans paying sales taxes in the TIF district. It's our money. And we have decided how to spend it - and should continue controlling that spending locally, not by remote control from Phoenix. We are spending the Rio Nuevo funds here in Tucson, on Tucson's future - and that is an unalloyed good thing.

Where would the money go if not for the Rio Nuevo TIF? To the general fund in Phoenix for whatever our wackadoodle legislature decided to spend it on. Probably for more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful. Think that's a better use of our money? I sure don't.

Was the money really spent with "little to show for it" (as is so often claimed) if it was spent locally on local jobs, local ideas, and local contractors on infrastructural improvements, buildings, and projects right here in Tucson? Hell, I would rather dump a quarter billion down our sewers here in Tucson than send it to Phoenix.

Let there be no mistake: those who continue to support the Rio Nuevo TIF are fundamentally supporting the future of Tucson. Those who want to kill it, want to harm Tucson. If a local politician wants to end the Rio Nuevo TIF, they are no friend to the people of Tucson, nor of the people of Southern Arizona who look to Tucson as their metropole. Don't ever forget that, and don't let them use your frustration with the process and priorities so far undermine your support for Tucson's future.

Left-wing Facebook pages, blogs, and online-only radio news shows are on fire with charges and counter charges about the Arizona Democratic Party's backroom politics, party darlings, and the quest for party solidarity during the 2012 elections. For those of you safely ensconced down here in sunny Baja Arizona, here's a news flash you won't see in the Arizona Daily Star: for weeks, a tiny band of Democrats have been picketing in front of the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters and protesting the party's practices.

The crux of the matter is the appearance of favoritism by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Maricopa Democratic Party, and the Pima County Democratic Party. So, everyone has favorite candidates; what's the big deal you ask? It's OK for individuals to have favorites-- candidates they work for and raise funds for; it's decidely not OK for the party to choose "party darlings" and grease the skids for them during the primary season. Favoritism during a primary season squashes dissent, suppresses the candidacy of challengers, creates bad blood in the party, and hurts democracy. Here are a few examples.

Pima County

In the CD8 special election to fill Gabrielle Giffords' seat, former Giffords' aide Ron Barber stepped into the race after several Baja Dems announced their candidacy or were thinking about it (publically)-- State Senators Paula Aboud and Matt Heinz, State Representative Steve Farley, and Southern Arizonan Nan Walden. Everyone expected Barber to be the sentimental shoe-in favorite and a placeholder Congressman for the CD8 seat but not to run in the general election for the new CD2 seat (a bluer district thanks to redistricting). After Barber announced he would run in the November general election, all of his would-be primary challengers-- except Heinz-- mysteriously dropped out. (Consipracy theorists like myself assumed people were strongly encouraged to step aside and make way for Barber.) In the Arizona Daily Star recently, Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers was qouted as saying there are people in the party who are encouraging Heinz to drop out. Personally, I think Blue Dog Barber has been a huge disappointment in the 2 or so weeks he has been in Congress-- most recently voting with Republicans and pandering to the National Rifle Association by voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. I lament that the other Dems dropped out of the primary so quickly; Heinz should definitely stay in the race.

In the 2012 CD7 election, the Democratic Party decided to not allow Congressman Raul Grijalva's primary challengers access to party data, which would have facilitated targeted precinct walking and phone banking. (Don't get me wrong here; I am in no way criticizing the Congressman. I like Grijalva, one of the true progressives in Congress, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have donated a whopping $90 to his campaign, and my husband has canvassed for him many times.) It keeps incumbents on their toes when they have challengers.

Speaking of incumbents, in the 2011 local elections, the Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee endorsed the three City Council incumbents almost 6 months before the primary. Only Councilwoman Regina Romero had a primary challenger, but who knows how many would-be challengers were stopped in their tracks by this pre-emptive move. In addition, the party spent thousands of dollars to bankroll a website and smear campaign against Romero's Democratic challenger Joe Flores. This was unnecessary nastiness against a fellow Dem, in my opinion. There was no way Flores would have overtaken Romero, so why stir up bad blood in the party? Endorsing all of the incumbents is a bad practice. Councilwoman Shirley Scott (a died-in-the-wool Blue Dog who was tainted by the long-running Rio Nuevo scandal) should have been primary'ed. Councilman Paul Cunningham (a neophyte Blue Dog) had been appointed to his seat; the Democrats never got a chance to size him up against other Dems.

Maricopa County

Facebook is on fire with charges that Maricopa County Democratic Party Chair Ann Wallack, Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director Luis Heredia, and newly elected Arizona Democratic Party Chair Bill Roe are determining which Dem primary candidates are "viable" and, consequently, are steering money and "boots on the ground" toward those candidates with the bucks-- thus ensuring that the lesser known and poorly funded candidates will fall by the wayside (according to the people making the charges). There is even a Facebook page created to oust Wallack from her position as county chair. (Here's a hint for the activists: find an elected precinct committee person to run against her for party chair when the party reorganizes after the November election.)

Two "party darlings" often used as examples are Ann Kirkpatrick for Congressional District 1 and Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff. There are charges that Wallack has strongly endorsed Penzone over reform candidate John Rowan and has manipulated meeting agendas to deny Rowan and his supporters time at the podium. This is clearly meddling with the primary process. As county chairs, both Wallack and Pima County's Rogers should give all primary challengers equal access to party resources, databases, and legislative district meetings (where said "boots-on-the-ground" meet to hear candidates and issues).

There are further charges that the statewide party is acting in a racist manner-- particularly toward Kirkpatrick's challenger Wenona Benally Baldenegro. Benally Baldenegro, who has vowed not to take corporate donations, has raised less than one tenth the funds Kirkpartick has. I think the charges of widespread racism in the party maybe a bit thin (particularly since the Pima Dems' "party darlings" are Latinos), but there is evidence of favoritism before the primary. For example, there are charges that Heredia (a Latino) started an e-mail campaign encouraging people to drop their support for Benally Baldenegro (a Navajo who is married to a Latino). If this happened (and I say "if" since I have not seen said e-mail), it is definitely manipulative and inappropriate.

My point is...

The party should not be choosing which candidates are viable. All Dems should be treated equally by the party and given an equal chance to succeed or fail on the merrits of their ideas and the strength of their campaign organizations. All declared candidates, who have filed papers, should be given equal access to party resources, voter data, and party foot soldiers and should be allowed to speak at statewide and local party functions.

The people should choose candidates in the primary election; it is NOT the party's role to take sides.

The bottomline is...

The bottomline is that we need to get money out of our election system. It appears as if a primary deciding factor in the party's determination of candidate "viability" is money. According to the Federal Elections Commission website, Progressive candidate Benally Baldenegro had raised around $75,000 by March 31, 2012. Blue Dog corporate candidate Kirkpartick-- who had more than that in her coffers last year before Benally Baldenegro even entered the race-- had raised over $990,000 by March 31, 2012.

Psychologically, people want to back a winner. Rightly or wrongly, the vast money difference between these two makes it appear as if Kirkpatrick is the better candidate because she has the big bucks.

Dream with me for a while about a publicly financed elections-- not unlike the Arizona Clean Elections system or Tucson's clean elections system. What if after qualifying with a certain number of signatures and $5 donations, all candidates received the same amount of money to run their campaigns? What a concept-- a truly level playing field. Although there would undoubtedly be far less advertising, maybe we would have improved communication and real messaging-- instead of spin, lies, and smear campaigns.

With publicly financed elections, maybe the voice of "the little guy"-- as my Mom would put it-- would be heard.

This Wednesday night, 5/30, Drinking Liberally will host a debate between the three Democratic candidates for the Arizona House of Representatives for LD9: Dustin Cox, Mohur Sidhwa, and Victoria Steele.

Drinking Liberally starts at 6pm (at The Shanty on 4th Avenue); the debate will start promptly at 6:30. The debate will be moderated by me.

You can submit suggested questions in comments.

The debate will be audio recorded and made available here on the blog.

So come on down, meet your LD9 candidates, hear them think on their feet, and ask any question you want answered... oh, and have a drink :)

This debate is the first in a planned series of State Legislative debates.

Tomorrow (June 10) is the last day to file challenges to try to remove candidates from the August ballot, but candidates are already being knocked off or simply withdrawing to avoid the embarrassment of being removed.

- Democrat Israel Correa has withdrawn from the race for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct, leaving Democrats Jeff Farias and Armando Gandarilla (incumbent) as the only two candidates.

- Democrat Bruce McDougall has withdrawn from the Manistee JP race, leaving incumbent Republican Gary Handley as the sole candidate on either side of the ballot.

- Democrat Jeffrey Brown has been removed from the ballot due to a challenge in the race for Encanto Constable, leaving Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell as the only candidate on the ballot.

- Republican candidate for governor John Munger (he of the low single digit support in recent polling) withdrew a week ago because he said that he felt that he couldn't outspend Clean Elections candidates who would receive matching funds. Funny, but he didn't jump back in after the Roberts Supreme Court stopped payment of matching funds for this cycle.

- Democrat Martha Garcia withdrew as a candidate for the LD13 State Senate seat because her petitions weren't going to stand up to a challenge. That leaves former State Rep. Steve Gallardo as the only candidate.

- Republican Wyatt Brooks has withdrawn as a candidate for LD3 House. I couldn't find a reason listed anywhere, but it could be related to the fact that while his campaign organized with a Kingman address (in LD3), the SOS' website now has shows an address of a P.O. box in Hualapai (in LD2, or maybe LD1, but almost definitely not LD3). His withdrawal leaves three candidates in the race, all Republicans - Ray Cullison II, Doris Goodale, and Nancy McLain. Goodale and McLain are incumbents.

In "getting into the race, sort of" news, a few folks have declared their write-in candidacies (primary here, general election here) -

- William Koller of Tucson filed for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate

- Richard Grayson of Apache Junction has filed as a Green for the Congressional seat currently held by Republican Jeff Flake in CD6. As no other Green candidates have yet filed for the seat, Grayson needs 221 votes in August's primary to qualify for the general election ballot (221 is the number of sigs he would have needed to appear on the primary ballot)

- Sydney Dudikoff of Tucson has filed as a general election candidate for U.S. Senate

As of this writing, the only non-legislative originated ballot question to qualify is the Medical Marijuana Act. Other citizen-originated questions have until July 1 to submit their petitions, so that list may grow (though that seems unlikely at this point.)

Note: Pima County's list of candidates is here. They don't, however, have a separate list of withdrawn/removed candidates up at this time.

If you don't know him, Brad Nelson is the head of Pima County's Elections Department. The quality and accuracy of our elections depend on his work. My experiences with Nelson tell me that our elections are in trouble as long as he's at the helm. He can be described generously as ill suited for the job and less generously as totally incompetent. (Even less generously, though I don't know this to be true, he can be described as someone who has participated in rigging elections and hides his actions behind a show of incompetence.)

I took part in the Saturday audit of the ballots of the recent primary. The ballots came from random precincts in the county. The idea was to count the ballots to see if the number agreed with the number that came from the vote counting machine for each chosen precinct. I watched Nelson in action. More about what I saw after I pause for an analogy.

I think Brad Nelson would make a good fireman. When the alarm sounded at the station, he'd be the first guy to slide down the pole and hop on the fire truck. At the scene, he'd rush into a burning building to pull out your pet dog (and if he abandoned his fire hose to do it, someone else could always take his place). He's the guy you'd see on TV that night, his face covered with soot, a tired grin on his face and a scared puppy in his arms.

But Nelson would make a lousy fire chief. He'd route all the fire alarms to his cell phone. When a call came in, he'd grab a garden hose, call his assistant Mary, hop in his car, speed to the fire and try to put it out himself. When you saw him on TV that night in front of the charred ruins of the house, he'd admit that, yes, it might have been better if he used a real fire hose but he couldn't find one, and a well organized crew of firemen might have done a better job putting out the fire, but there was no time to give each fireman a call, then give them an hour long training lecture, so he decided to try and put the fire out himself. He did the best he could, he'd say. Maybe he'll do better next time.

I was a Democrat working at a table with two Republicans counting ballots (you always have members of both parties to guarantee a fair counting). We were given a sealed bag filled with ballots. It couldn't be opened without breaking the seal -- that's the point. Inside the bag, we were supposed to find a piece of paper with a number written on it, the same number as we found on the seal. If the number on the paper and on the seal agreed, then we could assume the ballots hadn't been tampered with.

We broke the seal, opened the bag and pulled out the piece of paper. The numbers didn't agree. Let me repeat. The piece of paper inside the bag had a different number than the seal. That should be cause for concern, right? For all I know, the bag was opened in the dead of night, some ballots were removed, others were marked and put in their place, and the new seal was put on after the damage was done. Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for the seal to be changed. The original could have gotten broken in transit, for instance. It happens. But for me to be certain the anomaly was legit, I should have seen documentation that explained why the seal was replaced, signed by an elections division official and members of two political parties. (Party observers are supposed to be present at all parts of the election procedures, so they would be available to watch what was going on and sign the document.)

Brad offered no documentation. He said something to the effect that, Well, maybe on election night the seal was broken or someone didn't put on a seal so we had to put on a new one, or something like that. Did he know what happened? No, he didn't, but that was a possibility. He smiled a What-can-you-do? smile and left.

Later that day, I asked Brad if he knew how many other tables had similar problems. He had no idea, he said, and that didn't seem to bother him.

Chain of custody. That's the gold standard for election integrity, just as it is for evidence in a criminal investigation. If there's a break in the chain at any point, the ballots can be tampered with, and from that moment on, there is no way to be certain the ballots in the sealed precinct bag are the same ones the voters filled out.

The Election Integrity group has worked tirelessly (their patience simply amazes me!) to secure Pima County Elections, to make sure every step of the process is monitored and verified. But Brad Nelson, through a combination of carelessness and incompetence (and possibly corruption, though I don't know that's true) has frustrated their attempts at every turn. What I saw Saturday was a small sample of what goes on multiple times at every election Nelson oversees.

We will never -- repeat, never -- have guaranteed fair and accurate elections in Pima County so long as Brad Nelson heads the election process.

I've been hearing a lot of hostility to Rio Nuevo from conservatives of late. Perhaps much of it is merely conservatives seeing an opening to attack the liberally-dominated Tucson City Council based on the legitimate criticism of how Rio Nuevo funds have been spent so far. Such criticism of implementation is certainly justified, and I have engaged in criticism of the lack of accountability and transparency in how that money is being spent myself, but it is not a reason to attack the funding of Rio Nuevo.

There are two issues here: the program and its implementation. You can support the program (using a Tax Increment Finance district to keep Tucson sales taxes in Tucson for downtown redevelopment) and criticize the implementation (how the City government is handling the planning and funds) without betraying Tucson and Pima County. If fact, by doing this you are trying to improve the program and helping Tucson and Pima County. But if you attack the program, you are attacking the vital interests of southern Arizona.

To those southern Arizona politicians who are tempted to fail to carry their weight in supporting and defending Rio Nuevo I say this: DON'T YOU DARE. By failing to stand up for Rio Nuevo's funding against all comers you will betray your home... and you will betray conservative principles.

How is supporting Rio Nuevo an issue of conservative principles? Conservatives say they are for local control, local government, and making decisions about how to spend our tax money as close to the citizens as possible. I happen to agree with these principles. I don't think they are necessarily conservative (they are merely democratic - note the small 'd'), but few conservatives would hesitate to claim them. Conservatives claim to be for lower taxes and doing more with the taxes we have. Great. Rio Nuevo's financing doesn't raise a single additional cent of taxes; it merely allows Tucson to retain sales taxes collected locally to spend locally on improving Tucson, instead of sending it to the capital for a bunch of other, less accountable politicians to spend. Add to this the fact that whole idea of redeveloping our downtown is to make Tucson a better place to build a business and raise a family, and I don't see how any real conservative could want anything other than for Rio Nuevo to continue and be a huge success. Rio Nuevo is a deeply conservative program.

Southern Arizona voters should make support for the Rio Nuevo program and it's funding an acid test for any politician wanting to hold any office in southern Arizona. And indications are that they already have. Even criticizing the implementation of Rio Nuevo's TIF may have cost Ted Downing a seat in the Arizona Senate in LD 28. In hindsight, his concerns about Rio Nuevo's accounting practices for keeping track of how the money was to be spent, and how much was being spent on consultants, were clearly right on the mark. But for even looking askance the implementation while everyone else was focused on boosterism to get the program reauthorized, Downing was pilloried and his concerns were mischaracterized and his fidelity to Tucson's interests impugned.

Let Downing serve as a warning, conservatives. Criticize the City Council all you want. Call for the heads. Call for better management, oversight, planning, accounting, whatever. But call for, or even intimate that you will do anything but sacrifice your political life to defend the funding of Rio Nuevo, and southern Arizona voters will call for your head.

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to
ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which
adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

The turnout for Nucleus was huge, clearly indicating deep interest in this race with many Dem activists, journos, and office-holders and their staffs were in attendance. I'm sure the video of the whole event will be available soon (if not already), as the Latas krewe were filming.

The speeches and positions taken were mostly not unexpected, but there were some surprises.

The first result is Bronson revealed her brilliant strategy to defeat Branch-Gilby: paint her as unreasonably adversarial and partisan, and deny that herself ever opposed election transparency - and failing that, blame everything on the lawyers and the Secretary of State.

After her and Valadez's utter failure to stand up to the County Administration on Election Integrity on behalf of their own party, perhaps a little adversarial attitude is exactly what's needed. In any case, Bronson's gambit certainly didn't get much traction in the room. Bronson failed utterly to stop the bleeding. She just made her self-inflicted wounds deeper.

Branch-Gilby hammered at the themes of transparency, accountability, and open government, pointing out that the lack of public input on everything from the budget and planning to elections has left the Board politically isolated, wrong-footed on the issues, and overly dependent on the advice of a far from impartial administrative staff.

Branch-Gilby was undoubtedly the big winner of the evening. She was utterly convincing, supervisorial, and appealing. Bronson came off as defensive, rude, and out-of-touch with her party. She was the big loser of the evening.

Gratuitous and unwelcome advice to Bronson: avoid being in the same room as Branch-Gilby from here on out - you are out-classed.

The other losers of the evening had to be State Representative Tom Prezelski and South Tucson Mayor (and Valadez staffer) Jennifer Eckstrom. Oddly missing from Nintz's "live blog" account is the question Tom posed to the panel.

During QandA Tom rose to make his big contribution for the evening. He asked whether the candidates would pledge that a Democrat would be elected Chairman of the Board if Democrats retained a majority on the Board. His obvious implication being that Branch-Gilby and/or Robuck made a deal with Ray Carrol to make Ray the Chairman if they are elected.

This is a rehash of the rumor (I guess we can tell who's spreading that one now...) that Ray Carrol recruited Branch-Gilby and Robuck to challenge the incumbents in the primary as a means of overthrowing the Board and making himself Chairman. Nintz even fans the flames of this canard by claiming in his "live blog" of the event that Carrol is "is using Robuck and Branch-Gilby as his swords of vengeance against the board’s Democratic majority." That's utter and unadulterated bullshit.

This sort of bullshit may be meat and potatoes to a jaundiced journalist, but it should be anathema to a party loyalist like Tom. It's uncomfortably like the Republican strategy of claiming that Democrats are in league with the terrorists or want to surrender to them. It's pure scare tactic and it's low.

Worse, it implies that Branch-Gilby, who has done as much as Tom Prezelski for the Democratic Party locally, is willing to serve as some sort of patsy or stalking horse for Republicans. That is just unworthy for a guy in Tom's position to imply.

I have a lot of respect for Tom. He's a great public servant and has done some great things in the Lege, and I fully understand the strength and origin of his loyalties to the Eckstroms - and thus by transative property to Valadez, but I question his strategy of so transparently attempting to smear fellow Dems, especially one as staunch, principled, and widely respected as Branch-Gilby. If he thinks making such patently sophomoric and ham-fisted attacks on her character and motives is going to get any traction among local Democrats, he needs to think again. All he's doing is undermining his own credibility in the Party, which is a dangerous thing to do for a guy facing a crowded primary.

Most of Tom's ire, no doubt, is reserved for Bob Robuck, who is challenging his pal and Eckerstrom family policial scion, Ramon Valadez. Robuck pointed out that Jennifer Eckstrom serves simultaneously
as the elected Mayor of South Tucson and as a paid member of Ramon
Valadez's staff. Robuck thinks that could be a serious conflict of
interest. That's not a wild-eyed accusation - his view has merit. There is clearly the appearance that South Tucson could
get favored treatment from the County as a result of the arrangement.
Whether there actually has been any improper favoritism shown South Tucson as a result is an open question: one that Robuck suggests has an answer with his accusation that the County has been repairing roads in South Tucson that it shouldn't be responsible for. Such an arrangement might suit the people of South Tucson, but Ramon's constituents
outside of South Tucson might be troubled by it. Eckstrom and Prezelski denied that accuracy of Robuck's account. I don't know which of them is right.

The Valadez/Eckstrom claque in the corner of the room didn't like Robuck's temerity in bringing the whole subject up at all, and Tom decided to take the
soccer hooligan approach to make his rebuttal. When Robuck pointed out
the possible conflict, Tom loudly told Jennifer to "kick his ass!"
and yelled at Robuck to "sit down!" Jennifer disingenuously reframed
Robuck's point, suggesting that he must mean that "nobody in District 2
can work in Valadez's office?" That was so lame, you could actually
hear the room cringing at her sad rejoinder. So much for Jennifer kicking Robuck's ass.

This primary is leaving many with feelings of acrimony, and putting up the backs of incumbents who are stewing that anyone would dare question their motives or competence. As rumors of backroom deals with Ray Carrol are flogged by the incumbent's backers, and charges of conflict of interest, lack of spine, delegation of leadership to Chuckelberry batter the incumbents, this primary promises to be a doozy.

Perhaps a good airing of the dirty laundry is just what is needed to educate the voters and bring incumbents (if they retain their positions) back into line with their own party's will. As I noted to a table-mate as the evening took a nasty turn and she lamented the bitterness of the accusations, you have to drain the pus before a wound will heal.

A witness swears under oath that Bryan Crane, the computer operator in the Pima Elections Division, admitted in January of this year to rigging the RTA at the behest of Elections Division leadership. Apparently Mr. Crane was concerned about getting hung out to dry by his higher-ups for the crime. Expect denials from Pima County Administration, and a frenzied attempt to discredit the affiant.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors took public comments before adjourning
to an executive session to discuss the lawsuit filed by the Pima County
Democratic Party against the Board for electronic election data files.

Vince Rabago, chair of the Pima County Democratic Party, recommended that
the board not continue this lawsuit with an appeal. Several members of the public also spoke, including members
of the election integrity organization AUDIT AZ and primary
challengers Donna Branch-Gilby (D) and Barney Brenner (R)
who are running against Sharon Bronson in Supervisor District 3,
and Brad Roach (R) who is running for County Attorney against Barbara LaWall.

When the Board returned from executive session, they voted on the four
matters scheduled for executive session. For each of the first three
matters, the county attorney made a recommendation and a supervisor moved to
"follow the county attorney's recommendation."

On the final matter, the Democratic Party lawsuit, the county attorney
simply stated the posture of the case in court without stating his
recommendation for the record. Sharon Bronson moved to simply "not
file an appeal" and the Board approved the motion on a 5-0 vote.

The Board
also ordered that the electronic data files be hash marked for verification
purposes, and released to the Democratic Party on June 9, 2008.

After the vote, Supervisor Ray Carroll told this reporter that he could not
reveal what was discussed in executive session, but he would describe the
tone. Carroll said the supervisors were "frothing" and that Sharon Bronson
was "vitriolic" in her comments to him. Carroll said he thought
Sharon lost it and that Donna Branch-Gilby must be getting to
her.

Donna Branch-Gilby filed her petitions on Monday with over 1,500
signatures submitted.

The County had previously stipulated to an order in the first part of this
case. Party observers will be allowed to open and review ballot boxes for
the summary reports of early voting totals at issue in that case on June 25,
2008 under Court supervision.

Tucson Police Officer Erik Hite succumbed
to injuries he sustained in the line of duty. His death is a tragic reminder of the risks our police officers, and other first responders take every day to keep our communities and our families safe.

The past few years have unfortunately numbed many to such tragedies. When someone pays the ultimate price of service right here in our community, we are all reminded of the honor due all who serve, and the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf.

The TPOA has set up a fund, which is accepting public donations, to help Officer Hite's family:

Priscilla Storm (R, SD
3), vice president for public policy and community planning, Diamond Ventures.

John
Take, managing principal at Stantec, which is designing a wastewater
treatment plant in Marana.

Mark
Taylor, Westland Resources

Alice Templeton (D, SD
2), Project Manager, Stantec Consulting

Corey Thompson (R, SD
4), Engineer, Stantec Consulting

Jim Tress (O, SD 1),
Principal, Westland Resources

Richard Underwood (R,
SD 1), Owner, AAA Landscaping

Vince Vasquez (R, SD
4), Diamond Ventures

These are the folks
hosting Ramon's fund-raiser. All developers, lobbyists, lawyers and consultants for
developers. Only two are even Democrats, and only one even lives in Ramon's
district. So, I guess that who really supports Ramon. And who Ramon really represents.

Of course, I suppose he could still prove me wrong... but I'm not holding my breath.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

I got wind of your latest memo on
election security [pdf download] by reading about it in a Tucson Citizen article. Given that
you mentioned my name in the memo, I would have expected to receive a courtesy
copy of the memo. Maybe my copy went astray.

On page 14 of your memo you said
that the Pima County Democratic Party Election Integrity Committee “has
failed to provide a number of items that it agreed to provide in response to
County requests”, including a copy of an election integrity manual that I
drafted for the party. [Download ei_manualcomplete.doc
]

I don’t know about requests to the committee, but
I provided a copy of the draft manual to the County as part of my deposition in
November 2007. I think the manual was an exhibit at the trial in December 2007.
John Moffatt was present at the November 2007 deposition, so I assumed that he
got a copy of the manual at that time. To avoid having your copy of the manual
get lost again in the County bureaucracy, I am sending it directly to you as an
attachment to this email. I want to point out that this is a draft that has not
yet been officially adopted by any part of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Your memo contains a number of good
ideas for improving election integrity in Pima County,
particularly your recommendations to improve procedures for chain-of-custody
control of ballots, doubling the number of ballots to be hand counted, and
adding the hand-count audit process to non-partisan elections. If you would
also require sorting early ballots by precinct before hand counting them, it
would greatly improve your recommended hand-count process.

Unfortunately, doubling the number
of early ballots hand counted in the recent Presidential primary would not be
an improvement. There were no Democratic ballots included in the hand count audit
and a ridiculously minuscule number of Republican early ballots: 1 batch of the
four percent of the ballots that had been set aside for hand counting. When I
complained about this omission to Brad Nelson, he claimed he was following the
Secretary of State’s manual. He did not read the manual correctly, and
the writer of the manual did not read the statute (ARS 16.602.C.3) correctly. I
hope that you will remedy this defect in future elections.

I am also attaching a file
containing the 22 suggestions I offered to you in December 2007 in response to
your call for public comment on election integrity. You recommended in your
memo adopting two of these suggestions and part of a third. I have highlighted
the adopted suggestions in green and key parts of the other suggestions in
yellow. I hope you will reconsider your omission. All of these ideas are
already operational procedures in Tucson
City elections and would
be excellent improvements to the County’s procedures.

Tip Jar

Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
Please consider making a monthly pledge:

Things We Love

Fair Use Info

Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.

BforAZ Merchandise:

Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.

Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.